California Open Primary Analysis: Independent Candidates

by Ian Dawes, published Sep 4, 2012

In California’s first non-partisan open primary, voter turnout across party lines was a low 31.6%. This could, in part, be attributable to President Obama and Mitt Romney having locked up their nominations prior to California's open primary vote. There is no evidence or reports of voter confusion or administrative failures with the primary’s implementation. The Independent Voter Project sponsored the following open primary analysis on the strengths and weaknesses of independent candidates.

California Open Primary Analysis: Executive Overview

A common misconception is that the open primary was about independent candidates. Open primary supporters have and continue to assert that the open primary ethic is based on the notion that democracy works best when elections are decided by the most voters; whether our representatives do or don’t have party labels is less important than who they are accountable to when they get into office.

Out of the over 240 candidates that ran for California congressional office, 25 ran without a party affiliation. The candidates fell into two statistical categories: those that received less than 7% of the vote (Tier 1) and those that received greater than 11% district-wide (Tier 2). No candidates fell between to two tiers.

The Tier 1 non-partisan candidates had either limited funding or heavily funded opponents from one or both major parties. Tier 2 non-partisan candidates generally faced weak opposition in highly partisan districts.

The most interesting races were the Central Valley’s 10th District and the Ventura/Los Angeles Counties 26th District. As non-partisan candidates, both Chad Condit and Linda Parks had limited funding and faced strong opposition from both Democrats and Republicans, yet garnered a significant number of votes. Each outperformed their opponents on a cost per vote basis.

California Open Primary Analysis: Independent Candidates

A common misconception is that the open primary was about independent candidates. Open primary supporters have and continue to assert that the open primary ethic is based on the notion that democracy works best when elections are decided by the most voters; whether our representatives do or don’t have party labels is less important than who they are accountable to when they get into office.

The large number of No Party Preference candidates surprised open primary advocates. Twenty-five non-partisan candidates in 20 districts (out of over 240) ran without a party affiliation. The average candidate received 7.5% of the vote. Of the 25 candidates, 4 made it to the general election: Mary Singleton (District 13), Terry Phillips (District 23), David Hernandez (District 29), and Bill Bloomfield (District 33).

We have divided the non-partisan candidates into two tiers; (1) those receiving under 7% of the vote in their district (18 of 25 with an average of just 3.3%); and, (2) those that got more than 11% (7 of 25 with an average of 18.6%).

Tier 1 Candidates: Received less than 7% of the Vote

Those in the first tier of candidates shared several commonalities. For the most part, (1) they were not well-funded, (2) had little or no name recognition; and, (3) they ran in districts against viable Democratic and Republican challengers. It should also be noted that half of all non-partisan candidates that ran for Congress in California this election had no record of expenditures on file with the Federal Election Commission. These candidates represented two-thirds of all candidates in this first tier of non-partisan candidates.

The average expenditures for those candidates reporting in Tier 1 were $14,351.50. It should, however, be noted that there were two non-partisan statistical outliers that received less than 7% of the vote in their district: Jack Doyle and Dick Eiden. While they spent considerably more money than other non-partisans in Tier 1, they also faced more heavily funded opposition.

In northern San Diego and Orange Counties’ 49th District, non-partisan candidate Dick Eiden spent just under $26,000 or $3.25 per vote to receive 6.8%. Republican incumbent Darrell Issa spent over $610,000 or $8.05 per vote and came in at 61.1%. Democratic challenger Jerry Tetalman, however, who spent only $29,000 ($0.81 per vote) received 30.7% and won a spot in the general election.

Jack Doyle, a non-partisan candidate in San Diego’s 52nd District spent around $60,000, or $ 9.79 per vote, and only received 4.1% of the vote. Doyle’s campaign was met by 9 opponents. They had a combined campaign war chest of over $3.7 million. Republican incumbent Rep. Brian Bilbray spent over $764, 000 or $12.36 per vote and received 41%. Democrat challenger Scott Peters spent over $1.9 million or $55.78 per vote and received 22.6%. Democrat Lori Saldaña spent over $395,000 or $11.84 per vote and received 22.1%. The most significant statistic, perhaps, is that one Republican candidate, John Stahl, spent $483,995, yet only received 3.6% of the vote; less than independent Doyle. This amounts to over $88 per vote, or nearly 10x that of Doyle.

With these two outliers removed, the average dollar spent on non-partisan campaigns within this tier came in at $5,713.75. The average expenditures of their successful opponents were $749,834.

Tier 2 Candidates: Recognition, Cash, and Opposition

The second tier consists of 7 non-partisan candidates who received over 11% of the vote. There were three criteria (or combination thereof) that explain the relative success of each candidate: (1) political ID, (2) significant funding, and/or (3) a single-party opposition.

** Despite significant funding, these third-party candidates still received less than 5% of the vote.

There was one non-partisan candidate, Chad Condit, who outperformed the criteria. Condit may arguably fall into the first category of having political experience and indirect name ID because his father represented a portion of the district he was running in over a decade ago (he was defeated after a high profile controversy). However, polling conducted before the election put Condit at less than 4% suggesting that he did not enjoy a benefit going into the election. Yet, Condit broke through to Tier 2 gaining 15% of the vote in a five-person race against heavily funded incumbent Republican Rep. Jeff Denham and Democratic challenger and astronaut Jose Hernandez as well as a second independent candidate.

Candidates that Qualified for the November Election:

Four non-partisan congressional candidates out of 53 districts qualified for the general election. Of these candidates, three faced elections in highly partisan districts with no opposition party challenger. The other candidate was heavily funded and spent over $50 per vote.

(2) District 23 (Bakersfield Area): Terry Phillips, an acclaimed journalist, renowned foreign correspondent, and victim of a highly publicized employment termination with National Public Radio during a series of scandals involving NPR in 2011, made it in the top-two with 17.3% of the vote. Phillips ran against incumbent Kevin McCarthy (R) (72.2%) and Democratic challenger Eric Parker (10.6%). Phillips’ notoriety in combination with running as the only opposition to the Republican ticket gave him a shot at the seat in November. Phillips spent $1.07 per vote.

District

Candidate

% of Vote

Votes Cast

$ per Vote

Receipts

Disbursements

23

Kevin McCarthy*

72.2%

71,076

$40.34

$3,888,279

$2,867,114

23

Terry Phillips

17.3%

17,005

$1.07

$19,109

$18,212

23

Eric Parker

10.6%

10,399

no data

no data

no data

(3) District 29 (Los Angeles): In the race for congressional District 29, non-partisan civic leader and homelessness activist David R. Hernandez came in second with 21.7% of the vote against two Democratic opponents: Los Angeles City Councilman Tony Cardenas and challenger Richard Valdez. Hernandez spent $0.43 per vote.

District

Candidate

% of Vote

Votes Cast

$ per Vote

Receipts

Disbursements

29

Tony Cardenas

64.4%

24,880

$14.67

$551,272

$365,108

29

David Hernandez

21.7%

8,382

$0.43

$10,567

$3,575

29

Richard Valdez

13.9%

5,379

no data

no data

no data

(4) District 33 (Los Angeles): The fourth candidate, Bill Bloomfield, had considerable funding compared to his seven opponents. Bloomfield, a successful businessman, spent almost $1.4 million and received 24.6% of the vote in his bid to oppose longtime incumbent Henry Waxman (D), in the general election. Bloomfield spent $50.27 per vote. His other challengers included a relatively unknown Republican Christopher David, two other Democrats, as well as two fairly well-funded third party candidates. Libertarian candidate Stephen Collett spent over $180,000 to receive just over 4% of the vote. Green candidate David Steinman spent about $120,000 and received 3.5% of the vote.

Pareja can be distinguished from Condit and Parks because he failed to reach the general election despite having no opposition-party challenger. In his bid, he faced a 39-year career politician incumbent Rep. Pete Stark (D) and a relatively unknown challenger Eric Swalwell. Pareja spent $1.30 per vote.

Condit announced and filed to run for office on the last day possible, giving him less than three months to start and develop his campaign. He was outspent by two high profile opponents 10-to-1, and received over 15% of the vote. Condit was also supported by icPurple, a Super PAC that supported independent candidates. icPurple spent $30,000 on campaign commercials in support of Condit. If you include this amount in Condit’s campaign expenditures, he spent $6.77 per vote.

Chad Condit did have the benefit of some name identification within the district. His father, Gary Condit, represented a good portion of the district over ten years ago. However, his father was defeated after he became ensnarled in a high profile murder investigation. Polling conducted at the beginning of the filing period showed Condit receiving less than 4% of the vote.

From an analytical perspective, however, what is most valuable from the Condit campaign is the limited resources they did have were deployed in such a way so as to create a control group against which the effectiveness of the campaign could be measured. The 10th District includes all of Stanislaus County and a portion of San Joaquin County to the north. Condit was also raised in Stanislaus and his father once represented a portion of the district. The Condit campaign received just 5.4% of the vote in San Joaquin, but they collected 18.6% of the vote in Stanislaus County. This is important because the Condit campaign did not run a ground operation in San Joaquin and their social media efforts were targeted entirely to Stanislaus County voters. The factors help explain the disparity in voting percentages across county lines and indicates that a coordinated online and ground campaign can have a significant impact on actual votes received.

CD10-Stanislaus County

CD10-San Joaquin County

Candidate

OVERALL

Mail

Election Day

OVERALL

Mail

Election Day

$ per Vote

Jeff Denham*

48.83%

36.99%

24.25%

50.32%

37.53%

12.78%

$13.14

Jose Hernandez

25.71%

19.37%

6.34%

34.30%

26.44%

7.90%

$14.88

Chad Condit

18.63%

13.87%

4.76%

5.41%

4.02%

1.41%

$4.62

Mike Barkley

4.82%

3.96%

0.85%

7.00%

5.55%

1.44%

$2.03

Troy McComak

2.01%

1.53%

0.48%

2.98%

2.32%

0.66%

no data

The Condit campaign relied on a staff of family and close friends, walking door-to-door, a limited mail campaign, and a social media strategy targeted to Stanislaus County.

Parks had her name in the press often, a campaign website, but very little social media presence. She attended numerous community events, but did not appear to have a get out the vote operation comparable to the Condit campaign. Early March polling revealed that Parks had a significant 42.6% to 35.5% lead against Republican opponent Sen. Tony Strickland. Her polling numbers spiraled downward leading up to the primary election as the Democrats poured resources into a massive negative campaign. Faced with the attack, the independent lacked the political infrastructure to rebut the campaign.

Here, the most critical lesson of this unexpected season of independent candidates lies. Without a long-term investment in a political infrastructure, independent candidates are vulnerable to negative campaigning. This is because each Party has a core of base voters that will respond to trusted messengers regardless of the message. This will always be a vulnerability of No Party Preference candidates. Only time will tell whether some kind of surrogate for information sharing can ultimately close this gap. But, absent such an investment, candidates who choose to run as independents do so at a significant disadvantage even in an open primary environment.